one for the rounders

  • 29 Replies
  • 3726 Views
*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« on: January 18, 2007, 05:58:23 AM »
Could a Round Earther please explain to me how the observations made in Samuel Rowbotham's 9th experiment could be correct if the world is round?

Experiment 9 basically makes the observation that during a ferry trip from Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead it is possible at halfway to see the Poolbeg Light in Dublin turn around and also see the South Stack in Holyhead.

The height given by Rowbotham in the experiment for South Stack is only 44 feet when it should actually be 91 feet as it is on a cliff:



Also the passenger deck height of the ferries is 14 metres above water level.

Note that even with these increased heights it should not be possible to see both the lighthouses from a single point in the journey. However, according to [Removedl] and [Removed] it does happen.

one for the rounders
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2007, 06:10:40 AM »
Well thats a single observation made by him which may or may not be true. The websites you linked said nothing of being able to see both lighthouses during the trip, nor was I able to find any other independant corroborating information through Google.

I'll give the maths behind it a go, I'll scan in what I end up with.

one for the rounders
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2007, 06:16:56 AM »
The distances are to short.
Do you realize how small should be the earth if you could see curvature only in 30 miles?? :shock:
If Rowbotham had lived today, Im sure he had accepted the fact the earth is round, maybe he had flown once in the space, to make his own observation..He was a man of the proved truth, not someone who wanted to demonstarte the impossible..

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2007, 06:20:43 AM »
Quote from: "FastEddy"
Well thats a single observation made by him which may or may not be true. The websites you linked said nothing of being able to see both lighthouses during the trip, nor was I able to find any other independant corroborating information through Google.

I'll give the maths behind it a go, I'll scan in what I end up with.


If you go to the page that says "contact us" it will have thair email addresses. When you email them they'll forward on the query to their Senior Masters who will be able to confirm it.

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2007, 06:22:06 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
The distances are to short.
Do you realize how small should be the earth if you could see curvature only in 30 miles?? :shock:


It's not about seeing the curvature it's about seeing things that are 30 miles away. According to the circumference of your round earth you wouldn't be able to see either lighthouse in when you're halfway between the two as they would be below the horizon.

one for the rounders
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2007, 06:35:31 AM »
Not able? Why not?
There are only 30 miles, The circumference of the earthe has (at equator) about 28 000 miles...
Do you know that the earth is flater at the poles and rounder at equator?
  On clear days I see also mountains from a distance of about 50-60 miles ..

*

Masterchef

  • 3898
  • Rabble rabble rabble
one for the rounders
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2007, 06:40:48 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
Not able? Why not?
There are only 30 miles, The circumference of the earthe has (at equator) about 28 000 miles...
Do you know that the earth is flater at the poles and rounder at equator?
  On clear days I see also mountains from a distance of about 50-60 miles ..

Mountains are usually taller than 100 feet.

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2007, 06:43:33 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
Not able? Why not?
There are only 30 miles, The circumference of the earthe has (at equator) about 28 000 miles...


According to Wikipedia the equatorial circumference is only 25047 miles.

Quote from: "silvermoon"
Do you know that the earth is flater at the poles and rounder at equator?


Yes, and as this is quite far north it means the horizon is probably closerr than at the equator.

Quote from: "silvermoon"
 On clear days I see also mountains from a distance of about 50-60 miles ..


We're not talking about seeing from mountains, we're talking about seeing from the deck of a ferry.

one for the rounders
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2007, 06:46:04 AM »
There could be also be a mirror-efect, which helped Rowbotham to see both towers..The phenomenon were observed on many places in the world..

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2007, 06:48:08 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
There could be also be a mirror-efect, which helped Rowbotham to see both towers..The phenomenon were observed on many places in the world..


Care to give an example...

one for the rounders
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2007, 06:57:42 AM »
The sky is like a mirror for something you couldnt see because is to far or behind the horizont..

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2007, 07:09:45 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
The sky is like a mirror for something you couldnt see because is to far or behind the horizont..


I asked for an example. Can you cite any sources even?

one for the rounders
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2007, 07:23:07 AM »
It functions like a fata morgana
Things behind the horizont reflect because of alternating warm/cold air-layers..

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2007, 07:32:21 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
It functions like a fata morgana
Things behind the horizont reflect because of alternating warm/cold air-layers..


Quote from: "Wikipedia"
Objects on the horizon, such as islands, cliffs, ships or icebergs, appear elongated and elevated, like "fairy tale castles".

In calm weather, the undisturbed interface between warm air over cold dense air near the surface of the ground may act as a refracting lens, producing an upside-down image, over which the distant direct image appears to hover.


Cleverly explained in this picture:



Seems good enough until you see the photos of them and then it seems pretty easy to distinguish between something you're acutally seeing and an optical illusion:



(or the one you provided)

You can see the lighthouses, not an optical illusion.

P.S. I'm fairly certain you want to replace reflection with refraction.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
one for the rounders
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2007, 07:39:33 AM »
Quote from: "silvermoon"
Not able? Why not?
There are only 30 miles, The circumference of the earthe has (at equator) about 28 000 miles...
Do you know that the earth is flater at the poles and rounder at equator?
  On clear days I see also mountains from a distance of about 50-60 miles ..


Check the math of the Earth's curvature if you don't believe Mr. Midgard.  It's been calculated a number of times on this forum by as many people.  

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7835

I don't know what "fata morgana" is, but that effect is caused by a temperature inversion (when air is colder on the surface and hotter with altitude).

Edit:  The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 28000 miles, not the diameter.

one for the rounders
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2007, 08:12:33 AM »
It's an optical illusion dude! Like... air particles warp your sense of reality!!!!!

(Now you know how it feels!)

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2007, 08:14:52 AM »
It feels fine - why do you guys complain so much about it?

one for the rounders
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2007, 08:38:53 AM »
The experiment had falcified results and Midgard's pictures are fake. He should know better than to use them anyway.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2007, 08:48:55 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
The experiment had falcified results...


I gave you two independent sources you can check for yourself.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"
...and Midgard's pictures are fake.


The pictures aren't fake but more importantly they're irrelevant. Unless the earth is a lot smaller than what is given in round earth there is no way that you should see either light house when you are midway through the journey.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: one for the rounders
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2007, 09:17:40 AM »
Quote from: "Earth: Not a Globe"
It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay


He's forgetting to tell whether or not there are times when one CANNOT see the lights on each pier/light house.  Also, simply being able to see the lights does not mean you can see the light house (especially at night) in order to tell whether or not it is distorted.  All his experiments are (intentionally or not) vague, with wording like "it is not an uncommon thing" and "it has been said."  (sounds a lot like FOX News, to me).  

He might not be wrong about the phenomenon he observed, but I don't think he gathered or gave enough information to make any kind of conclusion.

*

midgard

  • 1300
Re: one for the rounders
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2007, 09:29:17 AM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Quote from: "Earth: Not a Globe"
It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay


He's forgetting to tell whether or not there are times when one CANNOT see the lights on each pier/light house.  Also, simply being able to see the lights does not mean you can see the light house (especially at night) in order to tell whether or not it is distorted.  All his experiments are (intentionally or not) vague, with wording like "it is not an uncommon thing" and "it has been said."  (sounds a lot like FOX News, to me).  

He might not be wrong about the phenomenon he observed, but I don't think he gathered or gave enough information to make any kind of conclusion.


There is a large period at the start and end of the journey when you can only see one light house. But there is a period along the journey where both light houses are visible.

I know you won't take my word for it which is why I provided two companies that have ferries that go between the light houses. If you don't believe me feel free to contact them.

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: one for the rounders
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2007, 10:41:21 AM »
Quote from: "midgard"
I know you won't take my word for it which is why I provided two companies that have ferries that go between the light houses. If you don't believe me feel free to contact them.


You've taken this trip yourself?  I've been to Wales, but I didn't take any ferries across the channel.  I loved it over there; beautiful place.  

Even if I can find pictures or testimony of this phenomenon (I did send each company an email) there are still lots of variables to consider on a RE and a FE.  The index of refraction of air depends inversely on temperature, directly on pressure and (by a huge margin) water vapor content.  

For a valid experiment we would need a quantification of  how much of the lighthouse is visible or how high off the horizon its light appears.  I don't think accurate measurements would be possible without a stable surface, but there might be some kind of survey equipment that can handle it.

And again I'll stress it is very important to know whether or not the phenomenon is always visible barring of course fog, rain, etc.  Just because "it is not an uncommon thing" does not mean that "it always is."  This trick of logic goes a long way in saying whether or not a piece of evidence is actually proof (or disproof) of something rather than only a subset of all observed cases.

I'll post when I get a response from the ferries (hah).

*

midgard

  • 1300
Re: one for the rounders
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2007, 10:46:46 AM »
Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
You've taken this trip yourself?


Nope, I emailed the companies.

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
Even if I can find pictures or testimony of this phenomenon (I did send each company an email) there are still lots of variables to consider on a RE and a FE.  The index of refraction of air depends inversely on temperature, directly on pressure and (by a huge margin) water vapor content.


So when you get your emails back you're still not going to believe them? That's what you're really saying. You just can't accept that the world is flat.

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
For a valid experiment we would need a quantification of  how much of the lighthouse is visible or how high off the horizon its light appears.  I don't think accurate measurements would be possible without a stable surface, but there might be some kind of survey equipment that can handle it.


I can take the trip if you want, you just need to send me 60. I'll take a camera with 10x optical zoom, this should be easy enough to use to show how much of the light house you can see.

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
And again I'll stress it is very important to know whether or not the phenomenon is always visible barring of course fog, rain, etc.  Just because "it is not an uncommon thing" does not mean that "it always is."  This trick of logic goes a long way in saying whether or not a piece of evidence is actually proof (or disproof) of something rather than only a subset of all observed cases.


No, you can see them in any circumstance (barring fog, rain, etc.)

Quote from: "EvilToothpaste"
I'll post when I get a response from the ferries (hah).


Finally, now you can begin to understand the truth.

one for the rounders
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2007, 11:09:26 AM »
Ok well, while this overvation has no proof or anything like that, and therefor nothing that alows me to directly counter it i can put down some data.

One thing that would allow you to se more of and object that would be ectected useing strait lines is that light does not travel in straight lines.  Light, which is made up of photons, can go through any number of distortions.  For example, it can refract.  Notice how when you put a strait stick into water it apears to bend, this can happen with water vapour, on a much smaller scale of course.  Also, the mass of the earth causes a bending in space time, which the light particles must move through because they are not traveling faster than the speed of light.  This beding is bery limited on earth, but explains why you are able to see the surface of the earth far into the distance, instead of looking along a tangent line.  The limit of this bending is reached when the central mass is great enough to cause the curvature of space-time to be so great that the light bends back in a loop of limited height, however this only happens in select cases and creates what is known as a blach hole.  

I could cite sources but you said earlier that you thought all of the scientist were in on a conspiracy, so that would be sort of useless wouldn't it?

*

EvilToothpaste

  • 2461
  • The Reverse Engineer
Re: one for the rounders
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2007, 11:43:05 AM »
Quote from: "midgard"
So when you get your emails back you're still not going to believe them? That's what you're really saying. You just can't accept that the world is flat.


I'm merely saying that there still is not enough evidence to reach a conclusion either way.  If we can see both lighthouses, it sure will be pretty.  And if not . . . well I bet it's still going to be a pretty picture.  

Quote from: "midgard"
I can take the trip if you want, you just need to send me 60. I'll take a camera with 10x optical zoom, this should be easy enough to use to show how much of the light house you can see.


Sixty Euros?  I don't even have that button on my keyboard.  

Quote from: "midgard"
No, you can see them in any circumstance (barring fog, rain, etc.)


Then I would like to see that claim listed in experiment IX of Rowbothman's book.  

Quote from: "midgard"
Finally, now you can begin to understand the truth.


Don't overestimate me, please.

?

RESOCR

  • 416
  • I argue for stress relief!
one for the rounders
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2007, 11:56:01 AM »
you would of course need to be looking out quite far for things to appear below the horizon. One thing FEers may not take into account is how LARGE the globe is.

but like, I didn't do the math, I'll find it out.
Quote from: ice wall gard 469320
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Atmosphere gets thinner with altitude
And so does your theory

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #26 on: January 19, 2007, 02:44:44 AM »
Quote from: "obcrock"
Ok well, while this overvation has no proof or anything like that, and therefor nothing that alows me to directly counter it i can put down some data.


Send an email to the Master of the Stena Explorer and he will confirm the results.

Quote from: "obcrock"
One thing that would allow you to se more of and object that would be ectected useing strait lines is that light does not travel in straight lines.  Light, which is made up of photons, can go through any number of distortions.  For example, it can refract.  Notice how when you put a strait stick into water it apears to bend, this can happen with water vapour, on a much smaller scale of course.  Also, the mass of the earth causes a bending in space time, which the light particles must move through because they are not traveling faster than the speed of light.  This beding is bery limited on earth, but explains why you are able to see the surface of the earth far into the distance, instead of looking along a tangent line.  The limit of this bending is reached when the central mass is great enough to cause the curvature of space-time to be so great that the light bends back in a loop of limited height, however this only happens in select cases and creates what is known as a blach hole.


So far the only optical illusion proposed to support this distortion has been the fata morgana. If it was fata morgana it would be apparent, as this point has already been raised I emailed the Master Explorer. He confirmed that the actual lighthouses are visible and it is not due to fata morgana, he also ellaborated and said that the required atmospheric conditions for a fata morgana had not been experienced along the route in the 20 years he's been working there. Again, the sites have email addresses: use them.

Quote from: "obcrock"
I could cite sources but you said earlier that you thought all of the scientist were in on a conspiracy, so that would be sort of useless wouldn't it?


Feel free to cite sources. I didn't say that all scientists are part of the conspiracy and if I did allow me to correct it: Scientists that make break throughs in physics are probably part of the conspiracy. Also there are probably many others in the scientific community who are also part of the conspiracy but these would probably be there to confirm and support the "break throughs."

Of course if you don't have any sources feel free to hide behind your excuse.

Quote from: "RESOCR"
you would of course need to be looking out quite far for things to appear below the horizon. One thing FEers may not take into account is how LARGE the globe is.

but like, I didn't do the math, I'll find it out.


I did do the math but I suggest you work it out for yourself. If the earth is round you should not be able to see both lighthouses. Also when I worked it out I used the equatorial circumference (as it is the larger) to give the round earth model the best possible chance of successs. Even if these lighthouses were on the equator (but still the same distance apart) this should not be possible.

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2007, 04:05:17 AM »
IMPORTANT: I have had one of those rare moments of conscience and have decided to no longer decided to continue this thread. Round Earthers please feel free to use this to dicredit Rowbotham.

The reason being that it doesn't matter what argument you come up with for being able to see the two lighthouses.  The truth of the matter is that you actually can't and there is a duration in the journey when you can see no land, let alone lighthouses.

If you email Stena Lines you'd get this answer (see below for transcript). I don't think it's fair on Stena Lines to be inundated with emails for something they're not involved in so I am withdrawing my argument.

While I was impressed with the fata morgana argument I am surprised at how many people failed to confirm the observations with the links I provided.

Here's the transciprt of the email:


Quote
Dear [midgard]

With reference to your e-mail please find below the comments from the Master of the Stena Explorer (Holyhead-Dun Laoghaire) route.  I hope this helps.


Quote from: "I"
Is there any point along the trip that you can see both the Poolbeg Light (in Dublin) and the South Stack (in Holyhead)?


Quote from: "Master of the Stena Explorer"
The short answer is no you can not see both lights at the same time. However in extreme atmospheric conditions, which we on board have never experienced, we could not say 100% that you might be able to see both lights.


Quote from: "I"
How high above water level are the decks?


Quote from: "Master of the Stena Explorer"
We are speaking on the HSS Car deck 9.5meters above sea level passenger deck 14meters above sea level.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13129
  • swiggity swooty
one for the rounders
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2007, 05:48:45 AM »
So basically... Foot in Mouth?

If this discredit's Rowbotham, then how many other expirements have we been able to discredit which support the FE model?

*

midgard

  • 1300
one for the rounders
« Reply #29 on: January 19, 2007, 06:39:17 AM »
Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
So basically... Foot in Mouth?


Right... at what point when I decided to come forth and admit that this was a bogus thread did I make a mistake and wind up with my foot in my mouth?

I already had the answers from stena lines before I made the post.

Quote from: "Hara Taiki"
If this discredit's Rowbotham, then how many other expirements have we been able to discredit which support the FE model?


None, stena line is part of the conspiracy so of course they're not going to admit that you can see the lighthouses at the same time.